DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 08/27/2024.
Claims 45- 64 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 08/27/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) were submitted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 45-49, 53-57, 60- 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 20210051754 A1), hereinafter “Zhou”; and in further view of Chin et al. (US 20210028849 A1), hereinafter “Chin”.
Regarding claim 45, Zhou teaches A method of communication, comprising: receiving, at a terminal device and from a network device, a first indication indicating a set of transmission configuration indicator, TCI, states for a control resource set, CORESET [Fig. 21; Par. [0411] teaches a base station may transmit an RRC message comprising BFR configuration parameters for the plurality of cells and TCI states of CORESETs for the plurality of cells];
determining whether a beam failure recovery, BFR, procedure is to be performed in application time associated with at least one TCI state in the set of TCI states [Fig. 21; Par. 410-414];
in accordance with a determination that the BFR procedure is to be performed, performing the BFR procedure in the application time associated with the at least one TCI state [Fig. 21; Par. 410]-415 teaches when predefined conditions are satisfied, the wireless device may determine monitoring/failure detection RSs based on TCI states of CORESETs of the second cell].
PNG
media_image1.png
484
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zhou does not teach in accordance with a determination that no BFR procedure is to be performed, stopping the BFR procedure in the application time associated with the at least one TCI state.
Nevertheless, Chin, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches in accordance with a determination that no BFR procedure is to be performed, stopping the BFR procedure in the application time associated with the at least one TCI state [Chin: Par. [0031]-[0042], [0131], [0191]-[0200] and Fig. 1-3, wherein the BFR procedure is cancelled based on various conditions, including a change/reconfiguration of TCI states during the BFR procedure].
PNG
media_image2.png
376
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Chin for determine BFR procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Chin in the Zhou system in order to select suitable cell to perform BFR after the beam failure [Chin: Par. 8].
Regarding claim 46, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches receiving, from the network device, a second indication indicating whether a beam prediction is enabled or disabled [Zhou: Fig. 21; Par. 405- 15 teaches of indication of deactivation of the monitored cell indicating that the BFR procedure is disabled/enabled];
in accordance with a determination that the beam prediction is enabled, determining that no BFR procedure is to be performed [Zhou: Fig. 21; Par. 49- 415 teaches stop/abort BFR procedure]; and
in accordance with a determination that the beam prediction is disabled, determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed [Chin: Par. [0031]-[0042], [0131], [0191]-[0200] and Fig. 1-3, wherein the BFR procedure is cancelled based on various conditions, including a change/reconfiguration of TCI states during the BFR procedure].
Regarding claim 47, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches receiving, from the network device, a fourth indication indicating [Zhou: Par. 164 teaches of one or more transmission configuration indication (TCI) states comprising a number of reference signals] a first duration in which a data collection stage for the beam prediction is to be performed and a second duration in which at least one of an inference or application stage for the beam prediction is to be performed [Fig. 21; Par. 410-414]; and
determining that no BFR procedure is to be performed for at least one of the first duration or the second duration [Chin: Par. [0031]-[0042], [0131], [0191]-[0200] and Fig. 1-3, wherein the BFR procedure is cancelled based on various conditions, including a change/reconfiguration of TCI states during the BFR procedure].
Regarding claim 48, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches receiving, from the network device, a fifth indication indicating whether the BFR procedure is enabled or disabled [Zhou: Par. 164 teaches of one or more transmission configuration indication (TCI) states comprising a number of reference signals];
in accordance with a determination that the BFR procedure is enabled, determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed [Fig. 21; Par. 410-414]; and
in accordance with a determination that the BFR procedure is disabled, determining that no BFR procedure is to be performed [Chin: Par. [0031]-[0042], [0131], [0191]-[0200] and Fig. 1-3, wherein the BFR procedure is cancelled based on various conditions, including a change/reconfiguration of TCI states during the BFR procedure].
Regarding claim 49, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches stopping the BFR procedure in application time associated with the set of TCI states [Zhou: Fig. 21].
Regarding claim 53, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches wherein determining whether the BFR procedure is to be performed comprises determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed in response to at least one of the following: wherein performing the BFR procedure comprises: indicating the beam from the lower layer of the terminal device to the higher layer of the terminal device [Zhou: Par. 288].
Regarding claim 54, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches wherein determining whether the BFR procedure is to be performed comprises determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed in response to at least one of the following wherein performing the BFR procedure comprises: transmitting, to the network device, the BFR request comprising information of the beam [Zhou: Par. 168 teaches transmitting BFR request comprising information such as MAC CE].
Regarding claim 55, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed in response to no reference signal for beam failure detection being changed no later than a period of time after a transmission of a BFR request in a first slot, and
wherein performing the BFR procedure comprises:
monitoring, a response to the BFR request from the network device at a second slot, the second slot being later than the first slot by the period of time disabled [Zhou: Fig. 21; Par. 405- 15 teaches of indication of deactivation of the monitored cell indicating that the BFR procedure is disabled/enabled];
Regarding claim 56, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches wherein performing the BFR procedure comprises:
monitoring the response to the BFR request within the time window [Zhou: Par. 168 teaches transmitting BFR request comprising information such as MAC CE].
Regarding claim 57, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed in response to no reference signal for beam failure detection being changed within a period of time corresponding to a predetermined number of symbols [Zhou: Fig. 21; Par. 49- 415 teaches stop/abort BFR procedure]; and
wherein performing the BFR procedure comprises:
applying a beam for signal transmission after the predetermined number of symbols from a reception of a response to a BFR request, the beam being indicated in the BFR request [Zhou: Par. 168 teaches transmitting BFR request comprising information such as MAC CE].
Regarding claim 60, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches dropping a subset of TCI states in the set of TCI states, the subset of TCI states being to be applied after a beam failure [Chin: Fig 3; Par. 40- 49 teaches new beam may be indicated via a reference signal (e.g., SSB, CSI-RS, and/or Sounding Reference Signal (SRS), and/or TCI state.]
Regarding claim 61, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches dropping a subset of TCI states in the set of TCI states, the subset of TCI states being determined based on the first TCI state in the set of TCI states to be applied after a beam failure and a TCI state in the set of TCI states to be applied at or after applying of a beam indicated in a BFR request Chin: Fig 3; Par. 40- 49 teaches new beam may be indicated via a reference signal (e.g., SSB, CSI-RS, and/or Sounding Reference Signal (SRS), and/or TCI state.]; Zhou: Par. 168].
Regarding claim 62, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches in accordance with a determination that a reference signal for beam failure detection is changed in application time associated with the set of TCI states, determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed; and
wherein performing the BFR procedure comprises:
disabling a setting of a value of a counter configured for beam failure indication to zero [Chin: Par. 50 teaches BFR-SR may (only) be used for BFR report transmission. The UE may be configured with zero, one, or more BFR-SR configuration. Moreover, each SR procedure (of a cell) may correspond to zero].
Regarding claim 63, Zhou teaches A method of communication, comprising: transmitting, at a network device and to a terminal device, a first indication indicating a set of transmission configuration indicator, TCI, states for a control resource set, CORESET [Fig. 21; Par. [0411] teaches a base station may transmit an RRC message comprising BFR configuration parameters for the plurality of cells and TCI states of CORESETs for the plurality of cells];
determining whether a beam failure recovery, BFR, procedure is to be performed in application time associated with at least one TCI state in the set of TCI states [Fig. 21; Par. 410-414];
in accordance with a determination that the BFR procedure is to be performed, performing the BFR procedure in the application time associated with the at least one TCI state [Fig. 21; Par. 410]-415 teaches when predefined conditions are satisfied, the wireless device may determine monitoring/failure detection RSs based on TCI states of CORESETs of the second cell].
PNG
media_image1.png
484
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zhou does not teach in accordance with a determination that no BFR procedure is to be performed, stopping the BFR procedure in the application time associated with the at least one TCI state.
Nevertheless, Chin, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches in accordance with a determination that no BFR procedure is to be performed, stopping the BFR procedure in the application time associated with the at least one TCI state [Chin: Par. [0031]-[0042], [0131], [0191]-[0200] and Fig. 1-3, wherein the BFR procedure is cancelled based on various conditions, including a change/reconfiguration of TCI states during the BFR procedure].
PNG
media_image2.png
376
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Chin for determine BFR procedure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Chin in the Zhou system in order to select suitable cell to perform BFR after the beam failure [Chin: Par. 8].
Regarding claim 64, the combined Zhou in view of Chin teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 45. The combined Zhou in view of Chin further teaches a processor configured to cause the terminal device to perform the method according to claim 45 [Zhou: Fig. 15].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50- 52, 58- 59 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
A full search was conducted and the features of the instant claims 50- 52, 58- 59 were not found to be in any reasonable combination of the closest prior art in combination of Zhou in view of Chin.
With respect to exemplary, the prior arts in above teach of method and devices for receiving TCI state indicator for BFR procedure [Zhou: Fig. 21; Chin: Figs. 3-5].
However, the combined Zhou in view of Chin does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claim 50 reciting;
“wherein determining whether the BFR procedure is to be performed comprises:
in accordance with a determination that application time associated with a TCI state in the set of TCI sates is shorter than or equal to threshold time, determining that no BFR procedure is to be performed in the application time associated with the TCI state; and
in accordance with a determination that the application time associated with the TCI state is longer than the threshold time, determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed in the application time associated with the TCI state”
In addition, the combined Zhou in view of Chin does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claim 51 reciting;
“ wherein determining whether the BFR procedure is to be performed comprises receiving, from the network device, information indicating a first subset of TCI states and a second subset of TCI states;
determining, based on the information and from the set of TCI states, the first subset of TCI states and the second subset of TCI states; and
determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed in application time associated with the first subset of TCI states and that no BFR procedure is to be performed in application time associated with the second subset of TCI states”.
In addition, the combined Zhou in view of Chin does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claim 52 reciting;
“in accordance with a determination that a value of a counter configured for beam failure indication is smaller than or equal to a predetermined value at a time offset before an expiration of a TCI state in the set of TCI states, determining that no BFR procedure is to be performed in application time associated with the TCI state; and
in accordance with a determination that the value of the counter is greater than the predetermined value, determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed in application time associated with the TCI state.”.
In addition, the combined Zhou in view of Chin does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitations of the instant claim 58- 59 reciting;
“wherein determining whether the BFR procedure is to be performed comprises:
determining that the BFR procedure is to be performed until a TCI state is changed and a beam corresponding to the changed TCI state is different from a beam indicated in a BFR request,
wherein performing the BFR procedure comprises:
applying, after a predetermined number of symbols from a reception of a response to the BFR request, the beam indicated in the BFR request for signal transmission.”
Therefore, Claims 50- 52, 58- 59 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter and allowed over the closest Prior Art references of Zhou in view of Chin.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYAW Z SOE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights